Please visit our sponsor!

Bookmark and Share
In This Edition

Tom Engelhardt wonders, "2084: Is Donald Trump Big Brother?"

Jesse Jackson examines, "The Significance Of The 1619 Project."

Glen Ford says, "Blacks Don't Blame Immigrants For The Boss's Crimes."

Jim Hightower uncovers "Government For The Rich, The Poor Be Damned."

Norman Solomon explains, "Why Bernie Sanders Is Correct About The Washington Post -- And Corporate Media Overall."

John Nichols says, "Vos Needs To Show Respect For Disability Rights."

James Donahue warns, "Mosquito Bites Getting Deadly."

William Rivers Pitt reports, "A Bunch Of CEOs Want To Fix Capitalism. You Can't Fix Anything Built On Slavery."

David Suzuki finds, "New IPCC Report Flags Diet And Land-Use Changes To Curb Climate."

Charles P. Pierce concludes, "Someone Should Really Think About Doing Something About New Jersey's Water Problem."

Naomi Klein explains, "Why the Democratic National Committee Must Change The Rules And Hold A Climate Debate."

Donald Trump wins this week's coveted, "Vidkun Quisling Award!"

Juan Cole wonders, "After Tlaib And Omar Are Barred By Netanyahu, Why Would Any Self-Respecting Democrats In Congress Do the AIPAC Tour Again?"

Jane Stillwater asks, "Is Justice Still Alive In America?"

And finally in the 'Parting Shots' department Andy Borowitz reports, "Denmark Offers To Buy U.S.," but first Uncle Ernie sez, "Lying Donald Thinks He Is King Of The Jews"

This week we spotlight the cartoons of Gary Markstein, with additional cartoons, photos and videos from, Ruben Bolling, Jim Bourg, Nati Harnik, Jaume F. Lalanza, Gage Skidmore, Jim Watson, Alex Edelman, Spencer Platt, Fedor Selivanov, USA Pyron, Felipe Dana, Erik McGregor, Sergio Azenha, Pacific Press, Jane Stillwater, Shutterstock, Reuters, Flickr, AP, Getty Images, Black Agenda Report, You Tube, and Issues & Alibis.Org.

Plus we have all of your favorite Departments-

The Quotable Quote-
The Vidkun Quisling Award-
The Cartoon Corner-
To End On A Happy Note-
Have You Seen This-
Parting Shots-

Welcome one and all to "Uncle Ernie's Issues & Alibis."

Bookmark and Share

Visit me on Face Book

Lying Donald Thinks He Is King Of The Jews
By Ernest Stewart

"Nail him up! Nail some sense into him!" ~~~ Monty Python

"Today, we can see with our own eyes what global warming is doing. In that context it becomes truly irresponsible, if not immoral, for us not to do something." ~~~ Joe Lieberman

Well, you woke up this morning
Got yourself a gun
Your mama always said you'd be "the chosen one"
Woke Up This Morning ~~~ Alabama 3

Are you hip to Wayne Allyn Root? He's that America fascist radio host and conspiracy theorist, that you may recall who claimed Obama wasn't an American, yes that Bozo. That's where Lying Donald got that bright idea. Lying Donald who thinks Jews that vote Democratic are traitors got his ego stroked by Root on Tuesday and is now calling himself King of the Jews...
It obvious that Dementia is setting in Lying Donalds tiny little brain, don't you wonder where it goes from here? I'm suspecting that before next years election we'll have to begin and end every conversation with a Hail Trump, under penalty of law! I'd remind Lying Donald of what happened to the last person called King of the Jews, but I won't, it will be our little secret!

In Other News

I see where a recent survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication indicates that roughly 60 percent of Americans are either "alarmed" or "concerned" about global warming and that the percentage who are alarmed doubled from 2013 to 2018. The percentage of conservative Republicans who are "very" or "somewhat" worried about global warming more than doubled in the same five-year period, growing from 14 to 32 percent (compared with 80 percent of moderate to conservative Democrats and 95 percent of liberal Democrats as of December 2018). Apparently the massive floods and heat waves are doing what the scientific predictions couldn't!

The percentage of Americans who are "doubtful" or "dismissive" decreased by a combined 11 percentage points in that time, and those who are alarmed now outnumber those who are dismissive three to one (29 percent to 9 percent). The U.S. Department of Defense issued a report in January describing climate change as a national security threat. But more than two in three Americans are still not alarmed-which is in itself, alarming.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international body on the assessment of climate change, issued a report last October indicating that we have already reached 1.0 degree Celsius of global warming beyond preindustrial levels and at current rates are likely to reach 1.5 C between 2030 and 2052, at which point there will be an increased risk of extreme weather events such as droughts and floods; higher sea levels threatening the lives of millions of people; greater species loss and extinction; and growing risk to water supplies, food security, economic growth, and human health and safety. These impacts may be irreversible. A city in India, the size of New York City is out of water.

What we already know underscores the need for urgent action. The IPCC report indicates the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 45 percent by 2030, relative to 2010 levels. Debra Roberts, cochair of an IPCC working group, said of the report, "It's a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now."

Recent scientific discoveries further underline the need for prompt and effective action. According to a study published in Science last week, scientists using a new method of measuring the rate at which glaciers melt below the surface of the water concluded they are melting 10 to 100 times faster than previously thought. That means that sea level rise and carbon release from melting glaciers are also occurring faster than scientists realized, with unknown consequences for the whole food web. The oceans are heating up and their life is dying off, since a couple billion people rely on the oceans for their only source of protein things are soon going to "hit the fan."

Meanwhile down in the Amazon basin they've had some 80,000 wild fires burning some of which were set on purpose to the point that some cities have lost daylight it perpetually night, all the time! It's good that Americans are finally coming to their senses, pity that their political leaders aren't. If this continues capitalism may destroy the world, at least for mankind. You can't eat gold, America!

And Finally

"I am the chosen one," says Lying Donald. I am like "The Second Coming Of God!" Oh My! I guess Tony Soprano lives again, and this time he has the ultimate power! Before Tony was the chosen one, Adolf Hitler said he was the chosen one and we all know how that worked out, 60 million dead! Hitler also promised to "Make Germany Great Again!" Scary, huh?

There is two cures for this, one is impeachment, but Nancy being the corpo-rat goon that she is, would never allow it, the other is the Bill of Right's 25th amendment, i.e.,

Amendment XXV


Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

As you can see we'd be stuck with god boy Pence, who, like Lying Donald, is a loonie toon! Ye gads, what to do? I mean, where is John Wilkes Booth, now that we need him? Be that as it may, Lying Donald wins this weeks Vidkun Quisling Award!

Keepin' On

As you may have noticed that six of our regulars are missing from this week's magazine, and Robert Reich and David Suzuki who are on vacation. They are the first of many that will be leaving as time goes by.

The internet isn't free, some of your favorite authors will be missing as we have to pay for their publishing rights in order to publish them. You'll have to look them up yourselves and may have to pay to read them on their sites. The same goes for some cartoonists.

We'll still keep fighting the good fight like we always have, as we're in it to the end. If you think that what we do is important and would like to see us keep on, keeping on, please send us whatever you can, whenever you can, and we'll keep telling you the truth!


06-26-1942 ~ 08-19-2019
Thanks for the music!

05-03-1940 ~ 08-23-2019
Ding Dong the witch is dead!


We get by with a little help from our friends!
So please help us if you can-?

****** We've Moved The Forum Back *******

For late breaking news and views visit The Forum. Find all the news you'll otherwise miss. We publish three times the amount of material there than what is in the magazine. Look for the latest Activist Alerts. Updated constantly, please feel free to post an article we may have missed.


So how do you like Trump so far?
And more importantly, what are you planning on doing about it?

Until the next time, Peace!

(c) 2019 Ernest Stewart a.k.a. Uncle Ernie is an unabashed radical, author, stand-up comic, DJ, actor, political pundit and managing editor and publisher of Issues & Alibis magazine. Visit me on Facebook. and like us when you do. Follow me on Twitter.

We are, in other words, already on a dystopian planet.

2084: Is Donald Trump Big Brother?
Orwell revisited in the age of Trump
By Tom Engelhardt

I, Winston Smith... I mean, Tom Engelhardt... have not just been reading a dystopian novel, but, it seems, living one-and I suspect I've been living one all my life.

Yes, I recently reread George Orwell's classic 1949 novel, 1984. In it, Winston Smith, a secret opponent of the totalitarian world of Oceania, one of three great imperial superpowers left on planet Earth, goes down for the count at the hands of Big Brother. It was perhaps my third time reading it in my 75 years on this planet.

Since I was a kid, I've always had a certain fascination for dystopian fiction. It started, I think, with War of the Worlds, that ur-alien-invasion-from-outer-space novel in which Martians land in southern England and begin tearing London apart. Its author, H.G. Wells, wrote it at the end of the nineteenth century, evidently to give his English readers a sense of what it might have felt like to be living in Tasmania, the island off the coast of Australia, and have the equivalent of Martians-the British, as it happened-appear in your world and begin to destroy it (and your culture with it).

I can remember, at perhaps age 13, reading that book under the covers by flashlight when I was supposed to be asleep; I can remember, that is, being all alone, chilled (and thrilled) to the bone by Wells' grim vision of civilizational destruction. To put this in context: in 1957, I would already have known that I was living in a world of potential civilizational destruction and that the Martians were here. They were then called the Russians, the Ruskies, the Commies, the Reds. I would only later grasp that we (or we, too) were Martians on this planet.

The world I inhabited was, of course, a post-Hiroshima, post-Nagasaki one. I was born on July 20, 1944, just a year and a few days before my country dropped atomic bombs on those two Japanese cities, devastating them in blasts of a kind never before experienced and killing more than 200,000 people. Thirteen years later, I had already become inured to scenarios of the most dystopian kinds of global destruction-of a sort that would have turned those Martians into pikers-as the U.S. and the Soviet Union (in a distant second place) built up their nuclear arsenals at a staggering pace.

Nuclear obliteration had, by then, become part of our everyday way of life. After all, what American of a certain age who lived in a major city can't remember, on some otherwise perfectly normal day, air-raid sirens suddenly beginning to howl outside your classroom window as the streets emptied? They instantly called up a vision of a world in ashes. Of course, we children had only a vague idea of what had happened under those mushroom clouds that rose over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As we huddled under our desks, hands over heads, "ducking and covering" like Bert the Turtle while a radio on the teacher's desk blared Conelrad warnings, we knew enough, however, to realize that those desks and hands were unlikely to save us from the world's most powerful weaponry. The message being delivered wasn't one of safety but of ultimate vulnerability to Russian nukes. After such tests, as historian Stephen Weart recalled in his book Nuclear Fear, "The press reported with ghoulish precision how many millions of Americans 'died' in each mock attack."

If those drills didn't add up to living an everyday vision of the apocalypse as a child, what would? I grew up, in other words, with a new reality: for the first time in history, humanity had in its hands Armageddon-like possibilities of a sort previously left to the gods. Consider, for instance, the U.S. military's Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) of 1960 for a massive nuclear strike on the Communist world. It was, we now know, meant to deliver more than 3,200 nuclear weapons to 1,060 targets, including at least 130 cities. Official, if then secret, estimates of casualties ran to 285 million dead and 40 million injured (and probably underestimated the longer term effects of radiation).

In the early 1960s, a commonplace on the streets of New York where I lived was the symbol for "fallout shelters" (as they were then called), the places you would head for during just such an impending global conflagration. I still remember how visions of nuclear destruction populated my dreams (or rather nightmares) and those of my friends, as some would later admit to me. To this day, I can recall the feeling of sudden heat on one side of my body as a nuclear bomb went off on the distant horizon of one of those dreams. Similarly, I recall sneaking into a Broadway movie theater to see On the Beach with two friends-kids of our age weren't allowed into such films without parents-and so getting a glimpse, popcorn in hand, of what a devastated, nuclearized San Francisco might look like. That afternoon at that film, I also lived through a post-nuclear-holocaust world's end in Australia with no less than Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, and Fred Astaire for company.

An All-American Hate Week

So my life-and undoubtedly yours, too-has been lived, at least in part, as if in a dystopian novel. And certainly since November 2016-since, that is, the election of Donald Trump-the feeling (for me, at least) of being in just such a world, has only grown stronger. Worse yet, there's nothing under the covers by flashlight about The Donald or his invasive vision of our American future. And this time around, as a non-member of his "base," it's been anything but thrilling to the bone.

It was with such a feeling growing in me that, all these years later, I once again picked up Orwell's classic novel and soon began wondering whether Donald Trump wasn't our very own idiosyncratic version of Big Brother. If you remember, when Orwell finished the book in 1948 (he seems to have flipped that year for the title), he imagined an England, which was part of Oceania, one of the three superpowers left on the planet. The other two were Eurasia (essentially the old Soviet Union) and Eastasia (think: a much-expanded China). In the book, the three of them are constantly at war with each other on their borderlands (mostly in South Asia and Africa), a war that is never meant to be either decisive or to end.

In Oceania's Airstrip One (the former England), where Winston Smith is a minor functionary in the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of lies, of course), the Party rules eternally in a world in which-a classic Orwellian formulation-"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." It's a world of "inner" Party members (with great privilege), an outer circle like Smith who get by, and below them a vast population of impoverished "proles."

It's also a world in which the present is always both the future and the past, while every document, every newspaper, every bit of history is constantly being rewritten-Smith's job-to make it so. At the same time, documentation of the actual past is tossed down "the memory hole" and incinerated. It's a world in which a "telescreen" is in every room, invariably announcing splendid news (that might have been terrible news in another time). That screen can also spy on you at just about any moment of your life. In that, Orwell, who lived at a time when TV was just arriving, caught something essential about the future worlds of surveillance and social media.

In his dystopian world, English itself is being reformulated into something called Newspeak, so that, in a distant future, it will be impossible for anyone to express a non-Party-approved thought. Meanwhile, whichever of those other two superpowers Oceania is at war with at a given moment, as well as a possibly mythical local opposition to the Party, are regularly subjected to a mass daily "two minutes hate" session and periodic "hate weeks." Above all, it's a world in which, on those telescreens and posters everywhere, the mustachioed face of Big Brother, the official leader of the Party-"Big Brother is watching you!"-hovers over everything, backed up by a Ministry of Love (of, that is, imprisonment, reeducation, torture, pain, and death).

That was Orwell's image of a kind of Stalinist Soviet Union perfected for a future of everlasting horror. Today, it might be argued, Americans have been plunged into our own bizarre version of 1984. In our world, Donald Trump has, in some sense, absorbed into his own person more or less everything dystopian in the vicinity. In some strange fashion, he and his administration already seem like a combination of the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of eternal lies), the memory hole (down which the past, especially the Obama legacy and the president's own discarded statements, disappear daily), the two-minutes-hate sessions and hate week that are the essence of any of his rallies ("lock her up!," "send her back!"), and recently the "hate" slaughter of Mexicans and Hispanics in El Paso, Texas, by a gunman with a Trumpian "Hispanic invasion of Texas" engraved in his brain. And don't forget Big Brother.

In some sense, President Trump might be thought of as Big Brother flipped. In The Donald's version of Orwell's novel, he isn't watching us every moment of the day and night, it's we who are watching him in an historically unprecedented way. In what I've called the White Ford Bronco presidency, nothing faintly like the media's 24/7 focus on him has ever been matched. No human being has ever been attended to, watched, or discussed this way-his every gesture, tweet, passing comment, half-verbalized thought, slogan, plan, angry outburst, you name it. In the past, such coverage only went with, say, a presidential assassination, not everyday life in the White House (or at Bedminster, Mar-a-Lago, his rallies, on Air Force One, wherever).

Room 101 (in 2019)

Think of Donald Trump's America as, in some sense, a satirical version of 1984 in crazed formation. Not surprisingly, however, Orwell, remarkable as he was, fell short, as we all do, in imagining the future. What he didn't see as he rushed to finish that novel before his own life ended makes the Trumpian present far more potentially dystopian than even he might have imagined. In his book, he created a nightmare vision of something like the Communist Party of the Stalin-era Soviet Union perpetuating itself into eternity by constantly regenerating and reinforcing a present-moment of ultimate power. For him, dystopia was an accentuated version of just such a forever, a "huge, accurately planned effort to freeze history at a particular moment of time," as a document in the book puts it, to "arrest the course of history" for "thousands of years."

Yes, in 1948, Orwell obviously knew about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the weaponry that went with them. (In 1984, he even mentions the use of such weaponry in the then-future 1950s.) What he didn't imagine in his book was a dystopian world not of the grimmest kind of ongoingness but of endings, of ultimate destruction. He didn't conjure up a nuclear apocalypse set off by one of his three superpowers and, of course, he had no way of imagining another kind of potential apocalypse that has become increasingly familiar to us all: climate change.

Unfortunately, on both counts Donald Trump is proving dystopian indeed. He is, after all, the president who threatened to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea (before falling in love with its dictator). He only recently claimed he could achieve victory in the almost 18-year-old Afghan War "in a week" by wiping that country "off the face of the Earth" and killing "10 million people." For the first time, his generals used the "Mother of all Bombs," the most powerful weapon in the U.S. conventional arsenal (with a mushroom cloud that, in a test at least, could be seen for 20 miles), in that same country, clearly to impress him.

More recently, beginning with its withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, his administration has started trashing the Cold War-era nuclear architecture of restraint that kept the great-power arsenals under some control. In the process, it's clearly helping to launch a wildly expensive new nuclear arms race on Planet Earth. And keep in mind that this is happening at a time when we know that a relatively localized nuclear war between regional powers like India and Pakistan (whose politicians are once again at each other's throats over Kashmir) could create a global nuclear winter and starve to death up to a billion people.

And keep in mind as well that all of the above may prove to be the lesser of Donald Trump's dystopian acts when it comes to the ultimate future of humanity. After all, he and his administration are, in just about every way imaginable, doing their damnedest to aid and abet climate change by ensuring that ever more carbon will be released into the atmosphere, warming an already over-heated planet further. That's the very planet on which humanity has, since 1990, burned half of all the fossil fuels ever used. Despite the Paris climate accord and much talk about the necessity of getting climate change under some kind of control, carbon is still being released into the atmosphere at record levels. (Not surprisingly, U.S. emissions began rising again in 2018.)

This summer, amid fierce heat waves in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere, as well as the setting of global heat records, with parts of the Arctic literally burning (while heating twice as fast as the world average), with Greenland melting, and the Antarctic losing sea ice in record amounts, some of the predictions of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the relatively distant future already seem to be in sight. As climate scientist Marco Tedesco put it recently, speaking of the Arctic, "We are seeing ice melting now that we expected 30 to 40 years from now."

We are, in other words, already on a dystopian planet. With threats to the world's food supply and the swamping of coastal cities lying in our future, with the migration of previously unheard of populations in that same future, with heat rising to levels that may, in some places, become unbearable, leaving parts of the planet uninhabitable, it is at least possible now to imagine the future collapse of civilization itself.

And keep in mind as well that our own twisted version of Big Brother, that guy with the orange hair instead of the mustache, could be around to be watched for significantly longer, should he win the election of 2020. (His polling numbers have, on the whole, been slowly rising, not falling in these years.)

In other words, with the American president lending a significant hand, we may make it to 2084 far sooner than anyone expected. With that in mind, let's return for a moment to 1984. As no one who has read Orwell's book is likely to forget, its mildly dissident anti-hero, Winston Smith, is finally brought into the Ministry of Love by the Thought Police to have his consciousness retuned to the needs of the Party. In the process, he's brutally tortured until he can truly agree that 2 + 2 = 5. Only when he thinks he's readjusted his mind to fit the Party's version of the world does he discover that his travails are anything but over.

He still has to visit Room 101. As his interrogator tells him, "You asked me once what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." And that "worst thing" is always adjusted to the specific terrors of the specific prisoner.

So here's one way to think of where we are at this moment on Planet Earth: Americans-all of humanity, in fact-may already be in Room 101, whether we know it or not, and the truth is, by this steaming summer, that most of us should know it.

It's obviously time to act on a global scale. Tell that to Big Brother.

(c) 2019 Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's His sixth and latest book, just published, is A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books).Previous books include: Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World (with an introduction by Glenn Greenwald). Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050 (co-authored with Nick Turse), The United States of Fear, The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's, The End of Victory Culture: a History of the Cold War and Beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from here.

The Statue of Liberty.

The Significance Of The 1619 Project
The project tells the "unvarnished truth" of slavery. We will face the horrors of our past, as well as the triumph of our progress. It is a telling that is long overdue.
By Jesse Jackson

On Sunday, the New York Times unveiled "The 1619 Project," a journalistic series in the Sunday magazine that seeks to tell the "unvarnished truth" about slavery and its impact on America's history.

In 1619, just 12 years after the founding of the first permanent English settlement in the Americas, the Jamestown colonists bought the first slaves, 20 to 30 enslaved Africans, from English pirates.

The Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, issued America's founding creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ... among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." As Nikole Hannah-Jones writes in her stunning introduction in the New York Times Magazine, at 43, she is part of the first generation of black Americans in the history of this country to be born into a society in which blacks had equal rights of citizenship.

Blacks suffered under slavery for 250 years, and brutal racial apartheid for a century more.

We have been legally free for just 50.

Americans prefer not to face this reality. Our history classes address it gingerly, if at all.

Even as President Donald Trump and cynical politicians stoke racial divisions for political profit, we too often look away from it. Trump has recently decided to make four young, newly elected congresswomen of color a central target of his already launched campaign for re-election, scorning them as un-American, suggesting that if they don't like America, they should go back to where they came from.

This though all four are American citizens, and three were born right here. Trump is poisonously invoking the old lie of slavery and segregation that people of color are somehow not real Americans.

Yet, as Roger Wilkins wrote in his book "Jefferson's Pillow" and Hannah-Jones in her introduction, it is the freedom struggles of black Americans that propelled the cause of equal rights for everyone.

The Constitution excluded women, Native Americans and black people, and did not provide the right to vote to most Americans. It is the laws born out of the civil rights movement that extended the right to vote to everyone and banned discrimination not simply on race, but on gender, nationality, religion and disability

Without the idealistic and patriotic struggle of black Americans, as Hannah-Jones notes, "our democracy today would most likely look very different - it might not be a democracy at all."

Recently, Ken Cuccinelli, Trump's acting director of the Citizenship and Immigration Services, sparked outrage when he brazenly reworded Emma Lazarus' famous poem found at the foot of the Statute of Liberty that reads "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."

What Cuccinelli probably had no clue about is that the Statute of Liberty was a gift to the people of the United States from the people of France and was dedicated in 1886 to celebrate the national abolition of slavery.

It is the figure of Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom.

A broken shackle and chain lie at her feet as she strides forward, commemorating the abolition of slavery in 1865, an abolition that turned out to be the first step in America becoming in fact, as well as in word, the land of the free.

In telling the "unvarnished truth" of slavery, we will face the horrors of our past, as well as the triumph of our progress. It is a telling that is long overdue.

(c) 2019 Jesse Jackson is an African-American civil rights activist and Baptist minister. He was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988 and served as shadow senator for the District of Columbia from 1991 to 1997. He was the founder of both entities that merged to form Rainbow/PUSH.

Blacks Don't Blame Immigrants For The Boss's Crimes
By Glen Ford

Large proportions of African Americans registered strong opposition to building a wall on the southern border, keeping undocumented people in limbo, and mass deportations.

African Americans differ only slightly from Latino Americans in their attitudes towards immigration, and are in some ways more opposed than Hispanics to Donald Trump's policies at the southern border. A comprehensive release of Gallup Polls conducted on immigration since 2006 confirms that the great ethnic political divide in the United States is between English-speaking, U.S.-born whites and virtually everybody else.

On most political issues, Hispanics -- who can be of any race -- line up somewhere in between Blacks and whites, with Blacks consistently taking the more "left" or "progressive" position. (U.S. ethnic alignments on political issues generally reflect objective, real-world social and economic data, with Hispanic unemployment, incarceration, income, wealth and health statistics placing them in between Blacks and whites.) Although the recent attention garnered by the Black anti-immigrant group ADOS may have raised questions about Black attitudes on the subject, the Gallup polls show remarkable agreement between Hispanics and African Americans on immigration questions.

Apparently, Gallup does not routinely tabulate responses by race/ethnicity - a growing problem among corporate pollsters, some of whom now group all "minorities" together while others release only "general" statistics, painting a distorted, too-white national portrait. In its in-depth immigration overview, Gallup compared general national responses from January of this year with white, Black and Hispanic answers to the same question back in June of 2016. Assuming that no earth-shaking changes have occurred in Black-Hispanic relations in the past three years, the polls reveal striking similarities in the two groups' positions on immigration and citizenship.

Asked where they stand on "deporting all immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home country," Blacks and Hispanics spoke almost in unison. The polls showed 76 percent of Blacks were "opposed" (36 percent) or "strongly opposed" (40 percent) to the proposition, while 78 percent of Hispanics were "opposed" (46 percent) or "strongly opposed" (32 percent). Although 2 percent more Hispanics were generally opposed to immediately kicking out all undocumented people, significantly more Blacks (40 percent) than Hispanics (32 percent) took the "strongly opposed" position. Only 61 percent of whites were either "opposed" or "strongly opposed" to wholesale deportation of "illegals."

On the question of "allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time," the two ethnic groups were closely aligned. The poll showed 84 percent of Blacks either "favored" (36 percent) or "strongly favored" (48 percent) a road to citizenship, while 92 percent of Hispanics "favored" (50 percent) or "strongly favored" (42 percent) the idea. Again, Hispanics were generally somewhat more in favor, but a greater proportion of Blacks lined up in the "strongly favor" column. A total of 82 percent of whites "favored" (45 percent) or "strongly favored" (37 percent) a path to citizenship.

On "building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border," a subject that presidential candidate Donald Trump was loudly trumpeting in 2016, Blacks were equally as generally opposed to the concept, but significantly more fervent in their opposition than even Hispanics. For both groups, 82 percent were generally opposed to the wall. But 55 percent of Blacks were "strongly opposed" versus 40 percent of Hispanics. The order was reversed in the less vehement opposition column, with 27 percent of Blacks and 42 percent of Hispanics "opposed."

The pattern is clear for all three questions. Black Americans closely agree with Hispanics on immigration issues, giving the "progressive" answer to Gallup's inquiries as often, or almost as frequently, as Latinos. However, significantly larger proportions of Black respondents were adamant in their positions, "strongly" favoring or opposing the propositions presented to them.

There is no schism between Blacks and Hispanics over immigration, and we can conclude from the polling data that most Blacks do not blame immigrants, most of whom are Hispanic, for historically high Black unemployment rates, or for depressed wage levels. If Blacks blamed immigrants for these conditions, it would show up in the numbers. Instead, large proportions of African Americans registered what might be interpreted as militantopposition ("strongly") to building a wall on the southern border, keeping undocumented people in limbo, and mass deportations. African Americans appear to feel more "strongly" about such things than Hispanics, although the Gallup poll shows that 85 percent of Black respondents and their parents were born in the U.S., versus only 32 percent of Hispanics. (The figure for whites is 88 percent.)

What Gallup tracked, unwittingly, were the statistical footprints of the progressive and enduring Black political consensus - deeply informed by the Black Radical Tradition. Black people take progressive positions on immigration despite the fact that wholesale immigration of low wage and undocumented workers does depress wages and degrade working conditions. That's what the rulers intend it to do, and the effects are intimately experienced by workers at the bottom of the barrel, where Blacks have been stuck since they arrived on these shores. For most of Black American history, we were the workers that were blamed for every crime committed by the owners of capital and industry and their political servants. The same white workers that blame immigrants for the precarity inflicted on today's society by the bosses, once similarly scapegoated Black people. It is to African Americans' credit that the vast bulk of us reject such chauvinism.

(c) 2019 Glen Ford is the Black Agenda Report executive editor. He can be contacted at

The great majority of farmers-80% of eligible grain farmers-got zilch from Donald the Dealmaker.

Government For The Rich, The Poor Be Damned
What we have here is government by plutocratic authoritarians who'll gleefully dole out millions to a wealthy family and then just as gleefully go out of their way to deny food to millions of poor families.
By Jim Hightower

Donald Trump loooooves farmers. We know this because he says so. "Farmers, I LOVE YOU!" he declared in December. And we've learned that whenever The Donald says something, it's true-even when it's not.

These days, he's loving farmers to death. Trump has ignored the obvious need to get monopolistic price-fixing bankers, suppliers and commodity buyers off their backs. And he's ineptly playing tariff games with China and other buyers of U.S. farm products, causing exports and farm prices to tumble. The result is that our ag economy is tumbling into a deep ditch, slamming farm families and rural America with a rising tsunami of bankruptcies.

Adding crude insult to economic injury, Trump's doofus of an ag secretary, Sonny Perdue, laughed at farmers, branding them "whiners" for opposing his majesty's disastrous policies.

So, needing a political "I love you" gesture, Trump has been sending big bouquets of money to some of his beloved farmers. Our money. Lots of it-$28 billion so far, in what he cynically (and comically) calls the Market Facilitation Program, otherwise known as a taxpayer bailout.

But TrumpLove turns out to be highly selective, with more than half of the government payments going to the biggest farm owners. The Department of Agriculture initially announced a $125,000 limit on the amount any one farm could get, but every Trump deal seems to have a gimmick in it to give a special break to the slickest operators. The slickum in this deal is that assorted members of a family can claim to be owners of the same farm and be eligible for bailout money, even if they do no actual farming and live in New York City! Thus, one Missouri farm family got $2.8 million worth of subsidy love from Trump, and more than 80 families topped half a million in payments.

Meanwhile, the great majority of farmers-80% of eligible grain farmers-got zilch from Donald the Dealmaker. The smaller producers who are most endangered by his export collapse got less than $5,000. So Trump's "Market Facilitation" is squeezing the many who are most in need while helping a few of the largest get even bigger.

While the Trumpistas are presently trying to plow a multibillion-dollar subsidy into big grain farms, they're shockingly stingy when it comes to our society's moral responsibility to make sure the least-wealthy among us get an adequate level of food. Their latest effort in the practice of mass minginess is to try literally taking food off poor children's plates. Using a tangle of federal red tape, Trump ideologues and bureaucratic minions are intervening to prevent states from providing food stamp assistance to millions of their people.

According to federal rules, to qualify for food aid, a family of three should have an income under $27,000 a year. But with rents, utilities, health care and even food prices constantly rising, millions of Americans can't make ends meet on such a low income. Thus, 40 states have stepped in to loosen that income restriction so families at least get the minimum nutrition humans need. Far from being welfare moochers (as far-right-wing extremists screech), these recipients overwhelmingly are working families, children, the elderly and Americans with disabilities. The benefit is hardly lavish; it averages only $127 a month, but even this modest outlay has proven enormously successful in mitigating poverty.

Congress actually authorized states to make such pragmatic income adjustments in a 1996 revamp of the law. But look out! Here comes Sonny Perdue again, rising up on his hind legs to proclaim that naughty state officials are using that authority as a "loophole" to circumvent Trump's federal authority. So Sonny and Donnie are demanding that a whole new bureaucracy of food stamp "eligibility police" be set up to monitor the assets of hard-hit people who're just trying to get adequate food on their tables. This nonsense will cost tens of millions of our dollars to harass the poor in an autocratic hope of nabbing a couple of hungry families who have a dime more in assets than miserly Trumpistas claim they should have.

What we have here is government by plutocratic authoritarians who'll gleefully dole out millions to a wealthy family and then just as gleefully go out of their way to deny food to millions of poor families.

(c) 2019 Jim Hightower's latest book, "If The Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates," is available in a fully revised and updated paperback edition. Jim writes The Hightower Lowdown, a monthly newsletter chronicling the ongoing fights by America's ordinary people against rule by plutocratic elites. Sign up at

Why Bernie Sanders Is Correct About The Washington Post -- And Corporate Media Overall
By Norman Solomon

Many decades ago, the great media critic George Seldes observed: "The most sacred cow of the press is the press itself." That remains true today.

Bernie Sanders set off the latest round of outraged denial from elite media this week when he talked to a crowd in New Hampshire about the tax avoidance of Amazon (which did not pay any federal income tax last year). Sanders went on to say: "I wonder why the Washington Post -- which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon -- doesn't write particularly good articles about me. I don't know why. But I guess maybe there's a connection."

Sanders has fought explicitly and effectively to raise the wages of Amazon workers as well as millions of others. Yet the mass-media pretense is that the financial interests of the Post's owner have no effect on the newspaper's coverage of Sanders.

Corporate denial is the name of that media game. Usually, expressed denials aren't necessary. But there's nothing usual about Bernie Sanders, who's been willing to call out the biases and blind spots of corporate media since he entered politics.

For his latest transgression, Sanders earned purportedly authoritative pushback from the likes of the Post's top editor, its media columnist and others with high media visibility. "Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor," Post executive editor Martin Baron declared, "Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest."

The Post's media columnist Margaret Sullivan quickly chimed in with a harmonizing tweet on Tuesday, defending her editor boss along with the owner of the paper: "I've never seen or heard a hint of @jeffbezos interfering in @washingtonpost coverage."

CNN's Chris Cillizza, citing his work at the newspaper for a decade, indignantly wrote: "For the last three of my years at the Post, Bezos owned the company. Not once in all of that time -- and I wrote multiple pieces a day about politics and politicians (including Sanders and Trump) over that time -- was there ever even a whiff of Bezos' influence in the newsroom."

As George Seldes commented long ago, "The most stupid boast in the history of present-day journalism is that of the writer who says, 'I have never been given orders; I am free to do as I like.'" Seldes noted that reporters routinely "know from contact with the great minds of the press lords or from the simple deduction that the bosses are in big business and the news must be slanted accordingly, or from the general intangible atmosphere which prevails everywhere, what they can do and what they must never do."

All Baron or Sullivan would need to do to disprove their own current claims would be to write a bunch of pieces denouncing the man who owns the Post -- and then see what happens due to their breach of required self-censorship.

On television, a CNN anchor joined with a USA Today columnist to claim that Sanders's criticism of the Post's coverage was free of evidence. The fact that corporate-media employees are vehemently defending corporate media is illustrative of the dynamic. It makes you wonder where career self-interest ends and sincere delusion begins.

Baron, Sullivan, Cillizza and countless other employees of corporate media are well-paid while publicly maintaining their denial in the service of corporate power. So, with the virtues of the Washington Post on parade, Emperor Bezos must be decked out in the journalistic finery of his new clothes, even when the self-interest and implications of billionaire leverage over media are stark naked.

What Bernie Sanders is pointing out is not -- and he never said it was -- a "conspiracy." The problems are much deeper and more pernicious, having to do with the financial structures of media institutions that enable profit-driven magnates and enormous corporations to dominate the flow of news and commentary.

The Post's Baron is ill-positioned to defend his newspaper against charges of anti-Sanders bias. Such bias has been profuse, and it began well before a pivotal moment in the 2016 campaign on the eve of the high-stakes Michigan primary in early March. Then, as FAIR analyst Adam Johnson showed, "the Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours."

This year, the Post has strained to throw negative light on Sanders's campaign, whether focusing on Wall Street or Venezuela. Nor is the Post far afield from other powerful media outlets. For instance, the New York Times reportage has taken Sanders to task for alleged sins such as desiring to exercise control over his own campaign and failing to please Democratic critics who are actually corporate lobbyists but not identified as such.

Nor is the AT&T-owned CNN far afield from the baseline of cable news giants that supposedly provide a liberal alternative to the odious Fox News. Coverage from MSNBC -- owned by Comcast, "the world's largest entertainment company" -- has provoked one assessment after another after another documenting the network's anti-Bernie bias.

"The corporate-owned and corporate-advertiser-funded media of this country are the biggest barriers between Bernie Sanders and the Oval Office," I wrote five months ago. "Often functioning as propaganda outlets, the major news media serve as an amplification system for corporate power that has long shielded the Democratic Party from the combined 'threats' of social movements and progressive populist candidates." (I continue to actively support Sanders.)

Journalists who have staked their careers on remaining in the good graces of corporate employers are certainly inclined to say in public that billionaire owners and huge corporations don't constrain their journalistic work. And in their minds, they might be telling the truth. As George Orwell wrote, "Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip."

(c) 2019 Norman Solomon is co-founder of and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State."

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, listens to Rep. John Nygren speak at a press conference on Dec. 4, 2018.

Vos Needs To Show Respect For Disability Rights
By John Nichols

The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was an epic moment in the struggle for equal rights for all Americans. Approved with bipartisan support, the ADA was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, who declared: "Our success with this act proves that we are keeping faith with the spirit of our courageous forefathers who wrote in the Declaration of Independence: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.'These words have been our guide for more than two centuries as we've labored to form our more perfect union. But tragically, for too many Americans, the blessings of liberty have been limited or even denied."

"The Civil Rights Act of '64 took a bold step towards righting that wrong," explained Bush. "But the stark fact remained that people with disabilities were still victims of segregation and discrimination, and this was intolerable. Today's legislation brings us closer to that day when no Americans will ever again be deprived of their basic guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The vision of the ADA was brilliant and necessary three decades ago, and it remains so today. At the heart of it is respect for Americans who are prepared to contribute mightily to the economic and civic life of this country. That's precisely what state Rep. Jimmy Anderson, D-Fitchburg, has done.

Paralyzed from the chest down since 2010 - after a drunken driver smashed into the vehicle he was in, killing Anderson's parents and brother - he has rebuilt his life, graduated from law school, started a nonprofit group that helps victims of drunken driving and been elected to the Legislature. It is still hard at times, and Anderson has sought modest shifts in legislative practices so that he can call in to Assembly committee meetings that are difficult for him to attend. (The state Senate already allows members to call in.)

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, had a horrible initial response to Anderson's request. Vos accused his colleague of "political grandstanding." But Anderson has persisted, and now, the Speaker says, "I'm sure at the end of the day we are going to make accommodations." Yet, Vos keeps claiming that Anderson's request is "all about making the Republicans look bad."

That's a shocking statement. What has made the struggle to advance disability rights so hopeful and refreshing, has been the bipartisan understanding that people of all backgrounds, all experiences and all ideologies must be afforded access. Now, Vos says of Anderson and others who have been pressing the issue, "Everything that they do is political and it's based on trying to make the other side look bad."

That's false. Anderson has tried to work with Vos on an issue that should unite Republicans and Democrats in Wisconsin - just as both parties united in 1990 to establish the ADA.

(c) 2019 John Nichols writes about politics for The Capitol Times. His book on protests and politics, Uprising: How Wisconsin Renewed the Politics of Protest, from Madison to Wall Street, is published by Nation Books. Follow John Nichols on Twitter @NicholsUprising.

Mosquito Bites Getting Deadly
By James Donahue

It was bad enough when mosquito bites in the U.S. began passing on the West Nile Virus about a decade ago. But with the warming temperatures, breeds of mosquitos that carry other tropical type diseases are working north.

One mosquito, known as Aedes aegypti, is threatening us with dengue fever and another painful virus known as chikungunya.

Cases of dengue fever have been reported in Florida and Texas in recent years and the first cases of chikungunya were reported in Florida this year. The two diseases are similar in that they cause extreme joint and body pain and can lead to death.

Yet another deadly mosquito-borne virus, Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) has been discovered in Massachusetts. An elderly woman died from the disease in 2012 and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health says the virus has been found in mosquitoes collected in Plymouth County.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were six cases of EEE reported in the U.S. last year, including one fatality. Of the 21 states that reported the virus over the last decade, Florida reported the most cases, with 13.

EEE is a rare and potentially fatal disease transmitted from animals to humans via mosquito bites. It causes inflammation of the brain.

Officials say another new species of mosquito, the Aedes, also known as the "ankle biter" is spreading quickly throughout Southern California. The Aedes mosquitoes are responsible for itchy, painful bites that first look like clustered pinpoint marks then become inflamed and can expand into big red welts and rashes.

This mosquito is known as a carrier of the Dengue fever virus and viruses for Yellow Fever and Zika. The Aedes mosquito is a native of tropical areas. But with the warming climate, it now is found in the United States in Florida, Hawaii and along the Gulf Coast. In hot weather it has been found as far north as Washington, D.C.

People who live in areas east of the Mississippi River, that experience plenty of rainfall and enjoy lots of green vegetation, streams and ponds with standing water, know the annoyance of summer invasions of mosquito swarms. The bites are usually always red and itchy for an hour or longer, but then they go away.

That is, unless the mosquito was carrying one of the many viruses that mosquitoes are now known to host.

Other serious viral diseases carried by mosquitoes, but not yet introduced to the United States, include malaria, Rift Valley fever, Chikungunya Fever, Ross River Fever, Murray Valley Encephalitis, Japanese Encephalitis and and St. Louis Encephalitis.

There is a species of mosquito found in Africa that also carries the filariasis worm. This is a parasite that causes elephantiasis, a disabling disease that causes a great swelling of parts of the body.

Indeed, if the mythological story of Noah's Ark bears any truth to it, we have to wonder why Noah allowed those two mosquitoes on the boat.

(c) 2019 James L. Donahue is a retired newspaper reporter, editor and columnist with more than 40 years of experience in professional writing. He is the published author of five books, all dealing with Michigan history, and several magazine articles.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson and Boeing CEO Dennis
Muilenberg speak during the Business Roundtable (BRT) CEO Innovation Summit in
Washington, D.C., on December 6, 2018. Since its inception, BRT has been at
the forefront of corporate resistance to pro-consumer, pro-union legislative efforts.

A Bunch Of CEOs Want To Fix Capitalism. You Can't Fix Anything Built On Slavery.
By William Rivers Pitt

Anyone who cracked open the business pages of the major papers on Monday morning was confronted by an avalanche of self-congratulation from the CEO caste and its idolaters. The Business Roundtable (BRT) - a large cohort of massive businesses that has been bending the economy to its will since 1972 - announced that it is "rewriting how it views the purpose of a corporation," according to The Washington Post.

"The leaders of some of America's biggest companies are chipping away at the long-held notion that corporate decision-making should revolve around what is best for shareholders," reported The Wall Street Journal. "No longer should decisions be based solely on whether they will yield higher profits for shareholders, the group said. Rather, corporate leaders should take into account 'all stakeholders' - that is, employees, customers and society writ large."

The timing of this announcement is significant, coming as two of the most prominent Democratic presidential frontrunners - Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders - have made breaking the grip of corporate and shareholder greed the hood ornaments of their campaigns.

Warren's proposed Accountable Capitalism Act would redistribute large amounts of corporate wealth to the middle class, and Sanders has been preaching against the gospel of corporate avarice for the entire term of his public career. "The concerns of workers, not just stockholders, should be part of board decisions," Sanders said to Walmart shareholders at their meeting in June. According to every reputable poll, much of the country is listening hard to what Warren and Sanders have to say.

"The new statement is the result of a yearlong reexamination," reports Fortune, "that began with a testy dinner attended by a group of journalistic critics and involving a comprehensive survey of CEOs, academics, NGOs, and political leaders. 'It has been a journey,' says Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky, who chaired the effort. But it was a necessary journey because 'people are asking fundamental questions about how well capitalism is serving society.'"

If you find yourself underwhelmed with confidence at the sudden turning of this particular worm, you are in good company. The idea that a bunch of hyper-wealthy corporate CEOs are prepared to throw sand in the gears of a system that has served them so well is harder to swallow than a shard of hot glass.

The president of BRT is Joshua Bolten, former White House director of legislative affairs under George H.W. Bush and former chief of staff under George W. Bush. Bolten is a former executive at Goldman Sachs, the corporation whose monumentally fraudulent mortgage practices were instrumental in bringing about the financial crash of 2008. Bolten was critical of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but changed his tune in 2017 after being chosen to lead BRT. "Lots of stuff gets said in campaigns," he said at the time. "That was then, this is now."

Beyond the unprosecuted corporate brigands captaining BRT, there is its ruinous history to consider. Since its founding, the operating ethos of BRT has been rooted in the first rule espoused by conservative economist Milton Freidman: "There is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

The CEOs who form BRT and those who follow their lead have managed to ignore the parts about playing by the rules, free competition and avoiding deception and fraud, mostly by purchasing politicians who rewrote those rules. Through this, they have done a bang-up job of increasing profits, to the point that the entire system now teeters on the verge of violent collapse due to the inequality their policies have fostered, again with the help of bought politicians.

Since its inception, BRT has been at the forefront of corporate resistance to a slew of pro-consumer, pro-union legislative efforts. The group was instrumental in thwarting Ralph Nader's push for a consumer protection agency, helped water down the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, championed Ronald Reagan's corporate tax cuts, lobbied hard for NAFTA, and convinced Bill Clinton to pull the teeth from his plan to penalize companies for excessive CEO pay. They have consistently, and usually successfully, lobbied against the imposition of regulations on business by the SEC.

Suffice it to say, I believe a group of CEOs is going to reform U.S.-style capitalism about as much as I believe Donald Trump's estimations of inauguration crowd sizes. It is within the realm of infinite galactic possibility that they truly mean well, but smart money says they know the popular resentment needle is buried deep in the red.

These people see pitchforks on the horizon, the inevitable endgame throughout history wherever and whenever economic inequality has grown so flagrantly gross. Thus, they offer this thin gruel to pretend at reform while lobbying against the public good behind walls fortified by fathomless greed and bottomless wealth.

The systemic cruelty of U.S.-style capitalism BRT would dabble at "reforming" has foundations that stretch far beyond the festival of corporate greed that marred the last quarter of the 20th century and scarred the first decades of the 21st. It is as old as the institution of slavery in this country.

Consider The New York Times's recent essay, "In Order to Understand the Brutality of American Capitalism, You Have to Start on the Plantation," published on August 14. Before there were banks as we understand them today, before New York City became a global financial juggernaut, before the middle class became familiar with the concept of a mortgage, there was chattel slavery and a U.S. economy based on the relative worth of human beings trapped in forced bondage:

Those searching for reasons the American economy is uniquely severe and unbridled have found answers in many places (religion, politics, culture). But recently, historians have pointed persuasively to the gnatty fields of Georgia and Alabama, to the cotton houses and slave auction blocks, as the birthplace of America's low-road approach to capitalism.
If today America promotes a particular kind of low-road capitalism - a union-busting capitalism of poverty wages, gig jobs and normalized insecurity; a winner-take-all capitalism of stunning disparities not only permitting but awarding financial rule-bending; a racist capitalism that ignores the fact that slavery didn't just deny black freedom but built white fortunes, originating the black-white wealth gap that annually grows wider - one reason is that American capitalism was founded on the lowest road there is.

This essay should be required reading in full for each and every person on the North American continent. The morals and practices adhered to by the CEOs of BRT and the other corporate capitalists of the United States were formed in the cotton fields of the South, and in the textile mills of the North where the product of that misery gave rise to the first factories ever known. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, mortgaged 150 enslaved people to fund the construction of Monticello. Before it was a center of world finance, Wall Street hosted the Municipal Slave Market.

Slavery in the U.S. touches every aspect of the way this country functions, including our brutal version of capitalism. Some of these titans of industry may not know the roots of their surpassing prosperity - this history has been deeply and purposefully buried literally for centuries - but it is fact more than 400 years in the making. A bunch of corporate CEOs tinkering around the outside edges of the crisis that is U.S.-style capitalism itself quite simply will not get it done.

When the revolution comes, it will be from the bottom up, and it will be far more than a PR stunt. It will be a fundamental reimagining of economic and social justice thoroughly divorced from the imperative of the slaver's lash and the shareholder's cash. It is well that BRT sees the writing on the wall. That they are reading it wrong is merely par for a very long course.

(c) 2019 William Rivers Pitt is a senior editor and lead columnist at Truthout. He is also a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of three books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know, The Greatest Sedition Is Silence and House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation. His fourth book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible, co_written with Dahr Jamail, is available now on Amazon. He lives and works in New Hampshire.

Producing 1,000 calories of beef takes 36,000 calories of feed, uses more than 430 gallons of
water and 140 square metres of land and generates nearly 10 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions

New IPCC Report Flags Diet And Land-Use Changes To Curb Climate Chaos
By David Suzuki

Land and agriculture are critical components in the climate crisis. According to a new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, land use - including agriculture and forestry - accounts for 23 per cent of human greenhouse gas emissions, while "natural land processes absorb carbon dioxide equivalent to almost a third of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry."

Simply put, the way we manage forests and grow, process and distribute food is contributing to climate disruption, but protecting and restoring natural landscapes will help absorb excess CO2.

Our footprint is huge. Climate Change and Land, by 103 experts from 52 countries, says human use directly affects 69 to 76 per cent of ice-free land surface, and agriculture accounts for 70 per cent of global freshwater use. It notes "the per capita supply of vegetable oils and meat has more than doubled and the supply of food calories per capita has increased by about one third" since 1961, while 25 to 30 per cent of total food produced is lost or wasted, all of which increases emissions. Changing consumption patterns have also created a world where two billion adults are overweight or obese while at least 821 million are undernourished.

The report examines food security, desertification, droughts, soil erosion and degradation, and solutions ranging from plant-based diets and sustainable animal agriculture to reducing deforestation and protecting green spaces. ,I>"Sustainable land management can contribute to reducing the negative impacts of multiple stressors, including climate change, on ecosystems and societies," it says.

"Land already in use could feed the world in a changing climate and provide biomass for renewable energy, but early, far-reaching action across several areas is required," said Hans-Otto Portner, co-chair of the IPCC working group that prepared the report.

"Many land-related responses that contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation can also combat desertification and land degradation and enhance food security," the report says. David Suzuki Foundation research shows protecting and restoring natural systems provides benefits beyond sequestering carbon and addressing climate disruption - such as reducing flood risks, filtering water, controlling erosion and more - at much lower costs than built infrastructure.

Some say the IPCC study doesn't go far enough. Because governments around the world must approve its reports, they tend to be conservative.

U.K. climate writer George Monbiot calls the report "a tragic missed opportunity" that "shies away from the big issues and fails to properly represent the science." His Guardian article questions the IPCC's tendency to play it safe. "Was the fear of taking on the farming industry - alongside the oil and coal companies whose paid shills have attacked it so fiercely - too much to bear?"

Monbiot argues the report authors underestimate agriculture's contribution to emissions by failing "to capture the overall impact of food production," noting, for example, that producing one kilogram of beef protein uses an average of 1,250 kilograms of carbon - "roughly equal to driving a new car for a year, or to one passenger flying from London to New York and back."

Rowan Jacobsen writes in Outside that developments like "Beyond" meat products spell the end of commercial beef consumption. He notes producing 1,000 calories of beef takes 36,000 calories of feed, uses more than 430 gallons of water and 140 square metres of land and generates nearly 10 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions. "In comparison, an Impossible Burger uses 87 percent less water, 96 percent less land, and produces 89 percent fewer greenhouse-gas emissions."

In Wired, Megan Molteni suggests gene editing crop plants with Crispr technology could reduce land-use pressure and fertilizer use, and make crops more nutritious and less environmentally damaging. "But it's still early days," she writes, "and the impact Crispr could have is not fully understood."

International director and co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association Ronnie Cummins argues in the Independent that "regenerative food, farming and land-use practices" could "fix our climate, restore the environment, improve the livelihoods of farmers and rural communities and produce more nutritious food."

Planting trees, protecting green spaces, eating less meat and reforming agricultural practices won't save us from climate chaos on their own. But, along with reducing waste, increasing energy efficiency and conservation and shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy, they're all part of the solution.

(c) 2019 Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and co_founder of the David Suzuki Foundation.

City Of Newark Distributes Bottled Water After High Levels Of Lead Found In Tap Water

Someone Should Really Think About Doing Something About New Jersey's Water Problem
Someone in the government, perhaps?
By Charles P. Pierce

I hope you won't mind if we talk about water again, because it's something of interest here in the shebeen, and not just because it's how we make the whiskey last longer, either. We now learn that Newark is our latest Flint. And the Natural Resources Defense Council is on the case. Once again, it's about antiquated pipes, and crumbling infrastructure, and a local government that would rather not tell anybody the truth about how they all may be getting poisoned.

The levels of lead in Newark, New Jersey's drinking water are some of the highest recently recorded by a large water system in the United States. And we know the cause: City and state officials are violating the Safe Drinking Water Act in several ways, such as failing to treat its water to prevent lead from flaking off from pipes into residents' drinking water and neglecting to notify people about the elevated levels and the health risks...The high lead levels are especially alarming because there has been long-standing concern about children's exposure to toxic lead levels in Newark. For years, the city has had the greatest number of lead-poisoned children in New Jersey. This likely stems from a variety of exposures to lead, including from contaminated tap water and other sources. Indeed, 2016 tests revealed 30 public schools with elevated water lead levels.
(And, before someone mentions it, yes, I am aware that Cory Booker once was mayor of Newark and that he still lives there and that people are going to ask him about this while he runs for president. And that's all I have to say about that at the moment. This is way beyond any political calculation.)
Newark officials have tried to exclusively blame old infrastructure for the drinking water crisis in public statements and on the city's official website since at least April 2018. But records show the city's own consultant, CDM Smith, informed officials in February 2018 that the water treatment performed by the city at one of Newark's two treatment plants was not effective, causing widespread corrosion of lead pipes and plumbing through many parts of Newark. The city's failure to control corrosion, a process that, when done correctly, should prevent lead from flaking into tap water, is central to the crisis of lead in Newark's drinking water...After reporting lead levels reaching a 17-year high at the end of 2018, city officials must act to bring Newark's water system into compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Until its tap water is safe to drink, the city must respond to the immediate threat of harm to residents by providing an alternative water supply and a robust public education program.
And, as was the case in Flint, the response to the crisis was ass-over-teakettle frantic. From The New York Times:
State and local officials said they were making free water available to 15,000 of the city's 95,000 households, and hundreds of people waited in long lines in the summer heat to pick up cases of water. But officials had to halt the distribution temporarily after discovering that some of the water exceeded its best-by date...Newark had long denied that the city had a widespread problem with its drinking water, only to reverse course last fall and give away tens of thousands of water filters. But recent tests have shown that the filters were not properly removing lead...Standing in long lines, residents expressed anger and fear over how wide-reaching the problem really was. Many said their anxiety over the water adds to the challenges the city already faces - from poverty to drugs. "We're ducking bullets, were ducking and dodging bullets every day," said Nafessah Venable as she stood outside a recreation center with her young son. "We can't even take our kids out to play. Now we've got to worry about water? Water is a necessity for life. How can we survive without clean water? It's tragic, and it's very mind-boggling to wonder what the future holds in terms of the water system."
Somebody really should think about doing something about this. Somebody, perhaps, with an interest in government?

(c) 2019 Charles P. Pierce has been a working journalist since 1976. He is the author of four books, most recently 'Idiot America.' He lives near Boston with his wife but no longer his three children.

The Quotable Quote-

"I'm a total Democrat. I'm anti-Republican. And it's only fair that you know it... I'm liberal. The L word!"
~~~ Lauren Bacall

A girl holds a sign that reads 'pull the emergency brake' as she attends a ceremony
in the area which once was the Okjokull glacier, in Iceland, Sunday, Aug. 18, 2019.

Why the Democratic National Committee Must Change The Rules And Hold A Climate Debate
By Naomi Klein


Your meeting in San Francisco this weekend takes place against a backdrop that is literally on fire. You are gathering one month after the hottest month ever recorded in human history. You are meeting on the same week that smoke from a record number of wildfires in the Amazon rainforest turned day into night in the Brazilian megapolis of Sao Paulo. And you are meeting just days after Iceland's prime minister led her country in its first funeral service for a major glacier lost to climate change.

This is the terrifying context in which you will vote on a series of resolutions to determine whether the presidential primaries will include a dedicated debate about the climate emergency. Not the already scheduled climate "forum" or climate "town hall," which will surely be fascinating for those who seek them out - but a formal televised debate among the top candidates vying to lead your party and the country.

I am writing to add my voice to the hundreds of thousands of others who have called on you to use your power to turn that debate into a reality.

Many of you are already on board, including the chairs of several state parties, but you are up against some powerful opponents. Let's take on their two main counterarguments in turn.

First, you will hear that the rules on debates are already set. And, as DNC Chair Tom Perez has declared, the party "will not be holding entire debates on a single issue area." But here's the thing: Having a habitable Earth is not a "single issue"; it is the single precondition for every other issue's existence. Humbling as it may be, our shared climate is the frame inside which all of our lives, causes, and struggles unfold.

More immediately, climate breakdown is already pouring fuel on every evil that humans are capable of conjuring, from deadly wars to femicide to unmasked white supremacy and colonialism. Indeed, President Donald Trump is currently throwing a tantrum because he is being denied what he perceives as the United States's manifest destiny to purchase the Indigenous-governed territory of Greenland, which has become increasingly valuable because of the wealth made accessible by melting ice. In short, there is nothing singular about planetary breakdown - it encompasses, quite literally, everything.

Other members of the DNC will argue that the climate debate must be shut down because if you give in to this wave of pressure, spearheaded by the Sunrise Movement, it will open up the floodgates for every progressive constituency demanding a dedicated debate of their own.

Members of the Sunrise Movement hubs from all across New York state gathered for a raucous
rally on August 13, 2019 outside of the DNC headquarters on 420 Lexington Avenue in
New York City to pressure the NY members of the DNC to vote for a climate debate

In truth, that will probably happen. And in retrospect, it probably would have served the country better to have a series of issue-based debates, rather than the incoherent free-for-alls we've been treated to so far. But the political and bureaucratic hassles you will face should you greenlight a climate debate need to be weighed against something far more important: the fact that, by breaking your own rules, you have a critical chance to model what it means to treat climate breakdown like a true emergency, which is precisely what the next administration needs to do if our species is going to have a fighting chance. And when you think about it (and I hope you do), that is a pretty fearsome responsibility.

Here is why setting an emergency tone at this crossroads is so important. Imagine that the party does absolutely everything right between now and November 2020. It elects a beloved candidate to lead the party with a bold and positive platform; that candidate goes on to defeat Trump in the general election; other galvanizing candidates succeed in taking the Senate and keeping the House for your party. Even in that long-shot, best-case scenario, a new administration would come to power with the climate clock so close to midnight that it will need to have earned an overwhelming democratic mandate to leap into transformative action on day one.

The timeline we face is nonnegotiable. According to the fateful report issued by the International Panel on Climate Change last October, if humanity is to stand a fighting chance of keeping warming below catastrophic levels, global emissions need to be slashed in half in the decade that follows a new U.S. administration taking office. Not 10 years to agree on a plan or 10 years to get started on the plan. It will have 10 years to get the job done.

According to the IPCC report, there is no historical precedent for change of that speed and scale, though it is technically possible. Some pathways are much more democratic than others. Some are much fairer than others - to workers, migrants, and the front-line communities that have already been forced to bear the toxic burden of our collective addiction to fossil fuels. There are big choices to be made about what path to take, and they must to be explained and debated before millions of Americans.

But let's be clear about one thing: There is no pathway that stands a chance of cutting emissions in time that does not begin with treating the climate crisis like a true emergency. That has little to do with the words we use - all kinds of governments, from local to national, are declaring "climate emergencies" and then continuing on pretty much as before. Several of the candidates running for president have talked about the "climate emergency" - but it barely earns more than a passing mention in their stump speeches.

What matters is that we act like we're in an emergency. Because it is only during true emergencies that we discover what we are capable of. During emergencies, we stop all procrastination and delay. We no longer do things just because that's the way they have always been done - instead, we suspend business as usual and do whatever it takes to get the job done.

Which brings us to your deliberations this week: A very good place to show the country what this actually looks like is to vote to have a climate debate, precedents and procedures be damned.

There will be objections and they will be legitimate. The climate crisis is not the only emergency we face, and many Americans are in the grips of multiple existential emergencies at once. The Trump administration's brutality against migrants is a full-blown emergency. Mass incarceration and police violence against African Americans is a five-alarm fire. Attacks on women's rights and bodies are an emergency. Economic inequality is an emergency. Trump himself is a rolling emergency. All of that is true and more.

It does not help the case for this debate that much of the mainstream climate movement has done a poor job of making clear links between the ways that the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our economy are assaulting the earth, assaulting democracy, and assaulting the most vulnerable among us all at the same time and to serve the same profitable goals.

The reasons behind these failures to connect are many. There's the blinding whiteness of too much of the climate movement. There's the fact that dependence on philanthropic dollars has fostered an atmosphere of scarcity and competition between movements that should, by all rights, be working in common cause. There's the long historical tail of the Red Scare, which has made a great many "progressives" unwilling to align themselves with a coherent left-wing worldview that would make these connections legible. All of these forces have succeeded in divided interlocking struggles into safe, "single-issue" silos, built to contain and restrain us.

Thanks to the climate justice movement and the momentum for a Green New Deal, awareness is growing about the ways that our crises overlap and intersect, which is why the calls for a climate debate have been endorse by diverse groups including the NAACP, United We Dream, Fight for $15, and more. But we have a long way to go before we can honestly say that we have built a truly intersectional climate movement.

Emergency personnel work to extinguish a wildfire near Cardigos village, central Portugal on Sunday,
July 21, 2019. Portugal, a victim of its poor forest management, has long been the southern European
country where most wildfires occur. Climate change has become another challenge for the country, bringing hotter, drier and longer summers.

None of this, however, absolves you of the historic responsibility you carry as you meet to set key rules for the Democratic Party this week. If anything, it heightens your responsibility because you have the power not only to approve a defining climate debate, but to challenge the candidates and moderators to craft the discussion so that it spans the full spectrum of issues involved in both climate breakdown and potential climate solutions. As 17-year-old climate justice organizer Xiye Bastida tweeted to your chair recently: The climate crisis "encompasses economic, health, ecological, racial, labor, energy, GENERATIONAL, and many more issues." It's only "single issue" if you allow it to be.

As you search your consciences to decide how to vote, it is worth remembering that 16-year-old Greta Thunberg is currently on a harrowingly small sailboat in the middle of the Atlantic, making her way to New York's harbor. This week marks exactly one year since she began her "school strike for climate," an example that has inspired a movement of young people that now spans the globe. In March, an estimated 1.6 million students joined the climate strike (and on the week of September 20, adults worldwide have been asked to join).

I am betting that most of you have appreciated Greta's speeches over the last few months; many of you probably shared them on social media. But Greta has been very clear that she knows her actions - whether refusing to go to school or refusing to fly - are not going to lower emissions at anything like the speed or scale required. Rather, she is trying to show you what emergency action looks like. And that begins with refusing to behave like everything is normal when the house is on fire.

For Greta, that has meant breaking the rules of what it means to be a child and going on strike from school. For you, this weekend, it should mean setting aside the rulebook and endorsing a climate debate, one thoughtfully designed to hold within it the many intersecting emergencies roiling our world. Making that choice would not solve the climate crisis. But it would send a powerful signal to the country and the world that we are in extraordinary times calling for truly extraordinary measures.

And that's a very big deal. Because as Greta says, "We cannot solve an emergency without treating it like an emergency."


Naomi Klein

(c) 2019 Naomi Klein is an award"winning journalist and syndicated columnist. Naomi Klein's book "On Fire: The Burning Case for a Green New Deal" will be published in September by Simon & Schuster. On September 9, she will appear with Greta Thunberg at an event hosted by The Intercept. To read all her latest writing visit You can follow her on Twitter: @NaomiAKlein.

The Dead Letter Office-

Donald gives the corporate salute

Heil Trump,

Dear Fuhrer Trump

Congratulations, you have just been awarded the "Vidkun Quisling Award!" Your name will now live throughout history with such past award winners as Marcus Junius Brutus, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, George Stephanopoulos, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Prescott Bush, Sam Bush, Fredo Bush, Kate Bush, Kyle Busch, Anheuser Busch, Vidkun Quisling, and last year's winner Volksjudge John (the enforcer) Roberts.

Without your lock step calling for the repeal of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, your statement that you are the chosen one, the second coming of god, Yemen, Syria, Iran and those many other profitable oil wars to come would have been impossible! With the help of our mutual friends, the other "Rethuglican Whores" you have made it possible for all of us to goose-step off to a brave new bank account!

Along with this award you will be given the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds presented by our glorious Vice Fuhrer, Herr Pence at a gala celebration at "der Fuhrer Bunker," formally the "White House," on 09-28-2019. We salute you Herr Trump, Sieg Heil!

Signed by,
Vice Fuhrer Pence

Heil Trump

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) speaks in Washington, D.C. on April 9, 2019.

After Tlaib And Omar Are Barred By Netanyahu, Why Would Any Self-Respecting Democrats In Congress Do the AIPAC Tour Again?
Dem leaders Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer condemned the move, but it is unlikely that they will do more than that.
By Juan Cole

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has barred Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from visiting Israel. This is an about-face of enormous proportions, since Israel has been inveigling US politicians to come to Israel for decades, in hopes of propagandizing on the Israeli point of view. The US is thought to have given Israel over $100 billion over the years, and still gives $3 bn a year (much more if you count tariff abatements and forms of technological transfer).

Netanyahu maintains that the two representatives had planned to use their visit to undermine Israel's legitimacy. Both are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, a caucus within the Democratic Party, which takes the stance that a boycott should be launched against Israel to force it to cease usurping Palestinian land and to force it to give Palestinians the right to have citizenship in a state- whether an independent state, or in Tlaib's case, Israel itself.

Note that this campaign does not target Israel but rather Israeli oppression of 5 million Palestinians, whom it denies basic rights of citizenship.

I wrote on another occasion:

"Supporters of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) on Israel are protesting the continued Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, the illegal Israeli blockade on Palestinian civilians in Gaza, and the system of land theft and denial of basic human rights imposed by Israel, which has become a form of Apartheid or in American terms, Jim Crow."
They might also be protesting the formal Israeli government policy of shooting down unarmed protesters with snipers who gather on the Palestinian side of the Gaza border to protest the boycott and blockade that Israel has imposed on them. Israeli snipers have killed hundreds of these protesters in the past two years and wounded thousands, often maiming them for life. The Israeli boycott of Gaza means that the victims of these war crimes cannot get good medical treatment in Gaza; Israel often won't let them be treated elsewhere, and so they lose limbs that might otherwise have been saved. The US press often mischaracterizes all this as "clashes" at the border, but extensive video and photographic evidence demonstrates that Israeli snipers are shooting down people who pose no danger to anyone, including sometimes medics, journalists, children, and unarmed women and men.

If any other country behaved this way, Congress itself would impose a boycott on it.

The entire affair has been roiled by a series of contradictions. Netanyahu began by allowing the two representatives into the country, but then Trump tweeted that that would make Israel look weak, so Netanyahu reversed himself. Then another Israeli official intimated that the two could visit the Palestinian West Bank. But that suggestion was shot down as well. Then the Israelis said that Rep. Tlaib could visit Her 90-year-old grandmother in the West Bank. But they put restrictions on her to keep the visit private and not to mention anything about BDS or boycott, divestment and sanctions.

The spectacle of Israel telling a sitting US congresswoman what they can say and what positions they can advocate for indicates how low US prestige has fallen in the world.

Tlaib would like to see her family but not at such a cost. She also could not afford to submit to such humiliation and still hold her head up high before her own constituents in Dearborn Heights. So she declined the offer.

Sen. Bernie Sanders suggested that if Israel does not what congressional representatives to visit, it might like to give back some of the billions of dollars in aid for which Congress votes.

Dem leaders Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Steny Hoyer condemned the move, but it is unlikely that they will do more than that.

If the Democratic party had any backbone it would stop participating in the humiliating annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) propaganda visits to Israel, as a form of protest.

(c) 2019 Juan R.I. Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. He has written extensively on modern Islamic movements in Egypt, the Persian Gulf and South Asia and has given numerous media interviews on the war on terrorism and the Iraq War. He lived in various parts of the Muslim world for nearly 10 years and continues to travel widely there. He speaks Arabic, Farsi and Urdu.

Is Justice Still Alive In America?
According to the American Bar Association, Yes
By Jane Stillwater

I really love the American Bar Association. Why? Because they always serve excellent lamb-chop lollipops, salmon sushi, shrimp tacos, roast beef, strawberry tarts, veggie samosas and white wine at their conventions.

At a reception for the Criminal Justice Section of the ABA held high above San Francisco on the thirty-third floor of the Hotel Nikko over crab cakes and Jack Daniel's, I posed this very important question to a young criminal-prosecution attorney. "Is justice actually being done in America today?"

After a long pause, he replied thoughtfully, "Yes, I would think so." Please let us hope that he's right!

At a panel discussion earlier that day regarding recent Supreme Court decisions, however, the answer was sort of different. "Our justices' decisions in the past were based on the issues. Judging at the Supreme Court level today is pretty much trench warfare. Supreme Court cases today are actually proxy wars against something else."

But according to many of the seminars I attended at the recent ABA convention, and according to many of the idealistic attorneys I interviewed between seminars and panels, in the day-to-day battle for justice in the trenches manned by our average small-time attorneys, justice is still being done -- and crab cakes are still being served too.

The two main take-aways I got after attending 15 or 20 different seminars at this convention were that U.S. attorneys love to eat well -- and also that even though President Trump seems to be a walking, talking Ken-doll-wannabe sociopath (who stole his election with the help of Republicans, Zionists, Saudis, gerrymandering, fraudulent voter exclusions, an unbalanced electoral college and rigged voting machines) and Attorney General Barr is a judicial joke, there are still some good people out there in America today, still fighting for justice.

PS: One of the most heart-rending seminars I attended was presented by the ABA Commission on Homelessness and Poverty, wherein a panel of experts discussed the all-too-common horrors of the sex-trafficking of children. Here in America, it is much more common than you think. Jeffery Epstein isn't the only one doing it. Hundreds of thousands of young girls (and boys) are being bought and sold every day into sex slavery. What will become of these children?

What will be come of America's youth?

And what has become of America's morals?

Who buys these kids? Who has the moral degeneracy to purchase children for sex? What kind of sick America is this?

PPS: Between the white-male dominated war machine, the white-male dominated bank ponzi schemes, the white-male dominated gun massacres from Columbine to Walmart and the white-male dominated sex slavery here in America, isn't it time we started electing more women to positions of power? Just sayin'. White males have really screwed with America's morals. Maybe women could do better? They surely couldn't do any worse!

Hell, even I could do better.

(c) 2019 Jane Stillwater. Stop Wall Street and War Street from destroying our world. And while you're at it, please buy my books!

The Cartoon Corner-

This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of
~~~ Gary Markstein ~~~

To End On A Happy Note-

Have You Seen This-

Parting Shots-

By Andy Borowitz

COPENHAGEN (The Borowitz Report)-After rebuffing Donald J. Trump's hypothetical proposal to purchase Greenland, the government of Denmark has announced that it would be interested in buying the United States instead.

"As we have stated, Greenland is not for sale," a spokesperson for the Danish government said on Friday. "We have noted, however, that during the Trump regime pretty much everything in the United States, including its government, has most definitely been for sale."

"Denmark would be interested in purchasing the United States in its entirety, with the exception of its government," the spokesperson added.

A key provision of the purchase offer, the spokesperson said, would be the relocation of Donald Trump to another country "to be determined," with Russia and North Korea cited as possible destinations.

If Denmark's bid for the United States is accepted, the Scandinavian nation has ambitious plans for its new acquisition. "We believe that, by giving the U.S. an educational system and national health care, it could be transformed from a vast land mass into a great nation," the spokesperson said.

(c) 2019 Andy Borowitz

The Gross National Debt

The Animal Rescue Site

Issues & Alibis Vol 19 # 31 (c) 08/23/2019

Issues & Alibis is published in America every Friday. We are not affiliated with, nor do we accept funds from any political party. We are a non_profit group that is dedicated to the restoration of the American Republic. All views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of Issues & Alibis.Org.

In regards to copying anything from this site remember that everything here is copyrighted. Issues & Alibis has been given permission to publish everything on this site. When this isn't possible we rely on the "Fair Use" copyright law provisions. If you copy anything from this site to reprint make sure that you do too. We ask that you get our permission to reprint anything from this site and that you provide a link back to us. Here is the "Fair Use" provision.

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."